Official Development Assistance and the British Council

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Edward Leigh

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and to have watched her whip the Minister into submission even before he has given his speech, which I look forward to hearing because he is a most effective Minister.

From a right-wing point of view, the point that my right hon. Friend made was very effective. My constituents in Lincolnshire are absolutely grinding their teeth at what is happening at the channel and want the Home Office to be far more proactive. This is not the right place to talk about what the Home Office should be doing, but why are people coming here? These are not nasty people; they are desperate people fleeing the most appalling war, poverty and deprivation. The channel is proving completely ineffective. In the second world war, we held back the Nazi hordes with the RAF—we stopped them, but we cannot hold people back. We are one world. If there is dire misery and poverty in the world, it will wash up on our shores.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend says that comments about Dover are not applicable to this debate, but I argue that they absolutely are. We do not explain to the British people how this money can be spent and that it does affect them directly. If we did, we would have more support for confirming the 0.7% commitment, rather than old-fashioned views about where the money has been spent—and I agree that some of it has been spent badly in the past. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on this issue, because when international development money is spent correctly, it will be supported by the British people.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am sure that is right. I accept that if we took an opinion poll in the Gainsborough constituency, a majority—perhaps even a strong majority— would be in favour of these cuts. I accept that, but if for a moment the Government explained what the money is spent on, they would find that the British people are kind and humanitarian. People in Lincolnshire often say to me, “Why are we giving money to India? They have aircraft carriers and a space programme.” I shall leave aside the utter poverty of hundreds of millions of people in Uttar Pradesh; why are we living through this horrible lockdown? Why are we spying on Ministers with cameras and having a complete moral void? Because of the delta variant, which has come from where? India. Whether it is the pandemic or migrants, we cannot insulate ourselves from the world. That is why we have an overseas aid programme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Edward Leigh

Monday 20th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which also came up in the debate. It is important when such people embark on this journey—when they sign the papers and endeavour to come to the UK—that they are fully aware of the current situation. The families federations, with which we work very closely, have made the case that it is not even clear to those actually embarking on the journey that, although it is okay for them to come across, they will bump into a financial burden should they wish to bring in their family, and we need to move forward on that.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

9. What assessment she has made of the potential effect on surrounding communities of the closure of RAF Scampton; and what plans she has for the future siting of the RAF aerobatic team.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

The RAF remains absolutely committed to Lincolnshire as part of our defence rationalisation programme. My hon. Friend is aware that we have had to restructure some of the assets in that county, but we do expect to see considerable investment in the near future.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I apologise to the Minister for banging on about RAF Scampton and its closure, but I will not be satisfied until it is engraved on his heart. Can he relieve the acute distress in Lincolnshire caused by the closure of RAF Scampton by announcing, very shortly, that he will keep the Red Arrows in Lincolnshire at one of the three remaining superb RAF bases—Coningsby, Waddington or Cranwell—and can he help the local community by continuing the heritage centre associated with the Dambusters raid?

[Mr Ellwood]

I will take those points in reverse order, if I may. First, may I pay tribute to that incredible endeavour that took place in May 1943, with Barnes Wallis and Guy Gibson? Every child grows up knowing what the RAF is all about because of what those brave heroes did back in the middle of the war.

My hon. Friend is right to point out that this is also the home of the RAF Red Arrows. That gives me licence to say, if I may, that we look forward to seeing them participate in the air component of the land, sea and air effort to pay tribute on the 75th anniversary of D-day, starting from the Defence Secretary’s constituency.

My hon. Friend is also aware that we have had to rationalise, and Scampton will close, but let us not forget that Lincolnshire very much remains at the heart of the RAF. We have RAF Digby; Cranwell, where the training takes place; Coningsby, of course, where our fast jet component is; and RAF Waddington, which is home to our intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance capability.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Edward Leigh

Monday 18th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady is right to wish to ensure that we look after those workers—who are committed to the RAF—and, indeed, their families. However, as I mentioned earlier, Lincolnshire does well from an RAF perspective. It has RAF Waddington, with its intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance capability, and RAF Cranwell, with its training capabilities, not to mention RAF Coningsby, with its fast jet capability. I hope that most of the people who are transferred or moved will be able to remain where they live now, although their work will take them elsewhere in the county.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

As a Member of Parliament representing RAF Scampton, I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that he has done in trying to secure a future for it with our district council, West Lindsey. May I urge him, however, to consider the desire of all Lincolnshire people, which is based not on emotion but on sound, grounded fact, that the Red Arrows should stay in Lincolnshire? We can provide good employment for those 400 people. The three bases that he mentioned are within 15 or 20 miles of each other. We have superb airspace and a great RAF history, so please can we keep the Red Arrows in Lincolnshire?

[Mr Ellwood]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s determination to ensure that this place recognises the work, the heritage and the history of RAF Scampton, which will, I think, be noted by his constituents and others. It is important for the museum there to continue.

As my right hon. Friend will know—[Interruption.] Is that okay Mr Speaker? As my right hon. Friend will know, the location of the Red Arrows is partly due to an operational capability to ensure that they are serviced. The airspace is run by the Civil Aviation Authority, and that is the subject of a separate discussion to be had with them.

Ministry of Defence

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Edward Leigh

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Well, I think it is very nice that we have such an impressive Minister as the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), sitting in front of us.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

On that introduction, how could I fail to get to my feet? The Defence Secretary sends his apologies. He is with the Prime Minister, telling her what he is doing, which I think is appropriate, given the challenges on finances that we face.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am grateful for that.

Given our commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence, as is required of NATO members, which most NATO countries ignore, we will have to spend more on defence regardless, in order to keep with up that target. That is the challenge we face.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Edward Leigh

Monday 15th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That all sounds very encouraging. Now, on the matter of equality and diversity, let us hear from a Lincolnshire knight.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Of course the armed forces should be welcoming and open to all, irrespective of their gender, race or sexuality, but is it not better to state this in general terms? After all, we are all part of a minority—as you have alluded to, Mr Speaker, I am part of many minorities in my views—and the armed forces should be representative of the whole nation.

[Mr Ellwood]

They should be, and that is why, even within the time of this Government, we have seen the number of women in one-star postings or above increase from 10 to 20, for example, and why we have opened up every role in the armed forces to women as well.

Aleppo

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Edward Leigh

Monday 28th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

Following Rwanda, a new international initiative establishing a duty of care was agreed, under which the international community would not stand by when a leader chose to kill his own people. That agreement was introduced so that comments about acts of genocide and other phrases that came out at the time could no longer be used to justify the hesitancy of the international community to step forward. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we bypass certain legal processes to move forward. In Kosovo, we had troops on the ground and we had collective international, regional and local support. In Kurdistan, a UN resolution backed the action taken there. He has raised a profound question. Should we go into a situation to do the right thing, even though we do not have international legal cover because such cover has been vetoed by a P5 member at every opportunity?

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am sure that the Minister is right—for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—to rule out unilateral action, but what did he mean by his attacks on the Labour Front Bench and on people like me who refused to support military action in Syria? What could possibly be achieved by more bombs falling on that benighted country? Surely, our priority should be peace. We should condemn violence wherever it comes from, including the terrible violence inflicted by the Assad regime and the attack on a school in western Aleppo, which has not been widely reported. I hope that the Minister will condemn that attack. If our priority is to strive for peace and end violence, we have to accept—whether we like it or not—that the appalling Assad and his Russian backers are going to stay. We must therefore drop our demand for them to go. We have to engage with everyone—Assad, the Russians, the Sunni rebels—to try to get peace, because that is what the people want.

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend is familiar with the complex make-up of Syria today given all its history. Once we move forward from this situation, it is likely that there will be a federal model that recognises the country’s differences and groupings. We face a situation today in which Russia is backing and placing all its money on the existing regime. It has a connection and relationship that goes back to 1946, which needs to be honoured and reflected. I say to the Russians—to Bogdanov, to Lavrov and to Putin—that they should have that relationship with the people of Syria, not the Syrian regime. They should have a conversation with Dr Riyad Hijab, the co-ordinator of the free Syrian opposition, and then move forward from there, so that Russia can continue to have a sphere of influence without attaching itself to the tyrant that is President Assad.

Humanitarian Law (Yemen)

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Edward Leigh

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of events that have taken place and are being looked into by Saudi Arabia, but there is also a comparison with what happened with the United States, when a hospital was also attacked. The question is whether any nation puts its hand up and says that a mistake has been made or whether it tries to cover things up and say that they did not happen, which would be a breach of international humanitarian law.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

These were not minor corrections issued on 21 July; frankly, the Government are now saying the complete opposite of what they said before. I am reminded of Ron Ziegler, President Nixon’s former press secretary, who said that all previous statements were inoperative. It is not just that the Government said that there was no evidence that IHL had been breached and are now saying that they are unable to assess whether there have been breaches. They also said that the MOD was of the opinion that the Saudis were not targeting civilians; now they say that the MOD has not assessed whether the Saudis are targeting civilians. This is a deeply serious matter. The Government must take action and we now want answers to these questions. Are the Saudis actually targeting civilians, yes or no? The Minister must come back to the House and give answers on these serious matters.

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes his point, but I will just say that each case is considered in its own right. Each arms export is considered under the ruthless criteria under which we operate. We look to the future, to the intent of that country and at how those weapon systems will be used. As things stand, we do not believe that they will be used in breach of IHL.

Aleppo

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

As the right hon. Lady is aware, getting access to Aleppo is very difficult indeed. We are collecting intelligence for the long term. She is right to highlight the complexities of this large city. The al-Nusra Front is based there, and Assad has taken advantage of the ceasefire to move weapons systems up to the area. That is why it is all the more important that we get Russia to exert its influence to make sure that Assad comes back to the table.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Surely we have to accept Syria as it is. Whether we like it or not, Assad is not going to go away in a hurry. He has the only army on the ground capable of defeating ISIL, and he has just as much support as all the hundred other warring factions. If we undermine him, an authoritarian, we will unleash worse totalitarian forces. Is it not significant that any progress this week has been as a result of contacts between America and Russia, yet our Government have put the Russian Government in complete deep freeze? We are denying them visas, we are not talking to Lavrov, we have absolutely no influence—because of our obsession with Russia and getting rid of Assad, we are not actually propelling peace forwards. We must drop the present policy and try to co-operate with the Americans so that Russia can get peace.

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not agree with what my hon. Friend has said, but I agree with the direction of travel he wants. Russia has influence over Assad. We are speaking with the Russians. John Kerry is in Geneva along with Lavrov, al-Jubeir and others, acknowledging the urgency of getting a renegotiated cessation of hostilities so we can get humanitarian aid back in.

Daesh: Genocide of Minorities

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Edward Leigh

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not give way.

Although a UN Security Council referral to the International Criminal Court is one option, there are other potential options for bringing Daesh to justice. In the meantime, we are supporting the gathering and preservation of evidence that could in future be used in a court to hold Daesh to account. I believe there is a very strong case to be answered, but we must clarify what we mean by genocide. As other hon. Members have mentioned, this refers to acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, religious or racial group. However, we must also consider crimes against humanity, which refer to acts committed as part of a widespread, systematic attack directed against any civilian population. That includes murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, sexual slavery and other forms of sexual violence. Furthermore, war crimes refer to grave breaches of the Geneva conventions. It may transpire that all three cases apply in this instance.

That is why we will do everything we can to help gather evidence that could be used by the judicial bodies, who are the appropriate people to judge these matters, to make a judgment. It is vital that that is done now, before evidence is lost or destroyed. Ultimately, this is a question for the courts to decide; it is not for Governments to be the prosecutor, judge or jury. The Prime Minister also said:

“Not only are the courts best placed to judge criminal matters but their impartiality also ensures the protection of the UK Government from the politicisation and controversies that often attach themselves to the question of genocide.”

It is essential that these decisions are based on credible judicial process, but that does not mean that we wash our hands of this issue. Right now, our priority is to prevent atrocities from taking place, and that is why we are playing a leading role in the global coalition against Daesh. I make it clear that, in the long term, we must hold Daesh to account for the atrocities it commits. The evidence that we are helping to gather now will ensure that the perpetrators of these crimes always know that the threat of prosecution is hanging over them.

We should make no mistake: British and international justice have a long reach and a long memory. We will track down those who commit these acts and hold them to account, no matter how long it takes. It took over a decade to track down Radovan Karadzic, but last month he was finally convicted and held to account for his crimes.

The UK is taking a lead on the international response to this issue. In September 2014, we co-sponsored the UN Human Rights Council resolution mandating investigation of Daesh abuses in Iraq. Working with international partners, we are seeking ways to support the gathering of crucial evidence that can be used by the courts to hold Daesh to account.

We must ensure that Daesh is held to account for its barbaric crimes against the majorities and minorities involved—Shi’a and Sunni Muslims, Christians, Yazidis, Kurds and other groups. Ultimately, the only way to put an end to these crimes and to liberate the people of Iraq and Syria is to defeat Daesh. We must continue to expose it for what it is: a failing organisation that is losing territory, struggling to pay its fighters and betraying Islam in all it stands for.

On that note, as I said last week, if we look at the profile of any suicide bomber, from Bali to Sousse, we see that they are sold martyrdom by extremists as a fast track to paradise. People who have scant knowledge of the Koran are promised a ticket to heaven with little, if any, understanding of or service to God. If we are to defeat extremism and stem the churn of vulnerable recruits, we must all emphasise the importance of the duty to God in this life as well as the next. Indeed, the Koran forbids suicide.

As has been said or implied in the House today, the UK has the aspiration and means to play a significant role in world affairs. Our historical links, now forged into bilateral and regional interests, mean that we are expected not just to take an interest, but to show leadership on the world stage. We are seen as fair, knowledgeable and trustworthy. We are playing a leading role in defeating Daesh on the battlefield and in defeating its ideology. We will hold Daesh to account in the courts for its terrible crimes, no matter how long it takes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

This Government and the previous Labour Government have deliberately undermined authoritarian regimes such as those of Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and Assad, and they have unleashed totalitarian regimes as a result. Will the Government accept that Assad, however unpleasant, is not going to go? Will they accept realpolitik, pick up the phone and try to broker a deal between Russia, Assad and the other anti-Daesh movements in order to try to get some chance of peace in the benighted Syrian countryside?

[Mr Ellwood]

It is for the people of Syria to decide who should lead their country. The majority of people in Syria do not accept that Assad should be part of its long-term future. He has used barrel bombs, he has used chemical weapons and he should have no part at all in the long-term future of the country.

Daesh: Persecution of Christians

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ellwood]

I will write to hon. Members with details on questions to which I have not replied, but I must conclude.

I have given as much indication as I can of the direction of travel that we would like to go in. I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary has made his comments, and I repeat—I do not want to get myself into any trouble, so I am looking around carefully—that we are not judge or jury here. It is not for the Government to call this, which hon. Members will perhaps recognise as a frustration. It is important that voices are heard to make it clear what the expectations are and where we should be going on what is happening in Iraq and Syria.

To truly defeat Daesh, to eradicate its ideology, and to secure long-term peace and security in the region, we must demonstrate through our words and actions our support for all communities, whether majority or minority, Shi’a or Sunni Muslims, Christians, Yazidis, Kurds or others. We will continue to do all we can to liberate the people of Iraq and Syria from the persecution and appalling violence that they face from Daesh. We must all continue to expose Daesh for its criminal and fraudulent betrayal of Islam. In the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton introduced the debate, I also hope that we can take important steps towards bringing Daesh to justice on the international stage.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I am sure the House would want to associate itself with the Minister’s comments about the atrocity in Brussels.

Question put and agreed to.

Syria

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady asked a series of questions. First, the latest UN Security Council resolution—resolution 2268—which confirmed the cessation of hostilities, underlines the importance of a previous one, resolution 2254, which is all about the ability to gain access to various areas where ownership is sometimes confusing. That is done on a very local basis to make sure that agreements take place and that UN and other convoys have the series of permissions they need, so that they are not halted at checkpoints, with the food being taken from them and used as a weapon of war. It is difficult for me to give a comprehensive reply for the whole of Syria, but these things are done on an area-by-area basis. The method for taking deliveries also reflects the threat level. Clearly, there are areas surrounded by Daesh, where it is impossible to have such agreements.

The hon. Lady spoke about the chemical weapons attack. A number of UN organisations are looking into a wider piece to do with the use of chemical weapons across Syria. They are in the process of completing a report to the UN, which is due shortly. If I may, I will write to her with more details on that.

On the work being done to provide international humanitarian aid, I go back to the conference we had, where we were able to garner an awful lot of support, including from Saudi Arabia, for making sure that money is filtered through the various UN organisations so that they can get through to the various locations.

The hon. Lady mentions a number of other extremist groups, including Ahrar al-Sham, and there is Jaysh al-Islam as well. They have not been considered as moderate; they have not been included in the discussions, and they were not represented in the talks where the Saudis brought the moderate groups together.[Official Report, 9 March 2016, Vol. 607, c. 1MC.]

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

May I just ask where the Foreign Secretary is? I know he is very busy, but the House of Commons must always come first. We are at least owed an explanation.

May I suggest that the Labour and Conservative establishments, in being such an outrider for the overthrow of unpleasant authoritarian regimes—whether Gaddafi’s, Assad’s or Saddam’s—have merely provided an opening for far worse, totalitarian movements? It is also arguable that we have had very little influence in the latest round of peace negotiations, as the Americans cosy up to the Russians. Will the Foreign Office now at least accept that there may be some merit in Assad being allowed to go gracefully in elections, however imperfect?

[Mr Ellwood]

First, may I say that I will not take it personally that my hon. Friend feels I am not adequate to answer today’s question? This is an urgent question, and the Foreign Secretary was not able to get here. I will certainly do my best to convey to him the fact that my hon. Friend would have loved to see him instead of me.

On the transition process, we ended 2015, after five years of hostilities, with opposition groups coming together for the first time. For the first time, we had international stakeholders, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, around the table at the Vienna talks discussing these matters. That was the first time a transition process was discussed, the first time an 18-month process was to be put in place and the first time life after Assad was actually considered.

It is important to recognise that it must be for all the people of Syria to decide their fate, whether they are Kurds, Druze, Alawites or Sunnis. We must remember that 80% of the deaths in Syria have been caused by Assad and his regime. That is why we say that it would be inappropriate for him to participate in the long-term future of the country. The whole purpose of bringing these organisations together to discuss the democratic process is that they will decide the transition away from Assad.

EU Membership (Audit of Costs and Benefits) Bill

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Edward Leigh

Friday 26th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would argue that the civil servants we send there are among the best in the world. It is a huge privilege and honour to work in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, although many of the civil servants in Brussels come from other Departments.

I must say, however, that we are granted 12% of the jobs in the EU, in the various Commission roles and so forth, but, of late, we have not taken them, because there are language exams to be taken, and the language school in the Foreign Office was closed down. There were important top jobs to be had, but because our civil servants could not pass the two language courses required—one at a higher level, one at a more subsidiary level—we could not fill the very roles that would have allowed us the necessary influence in the EU, in the bowels of Brussels, to change, affect and advance legislation.

I am pleased to say that we are changing that—the language school is back in place and able to train civil servants to the correct levels—but when I wrote the pamphlet, before the 2010 election, we were filling only 3% to 4% of those jobs, meaning that 8% of the jobs to which Britain was entitled were going to other countries. One is supposed to relinquish one’s passport—metaphorically—when one becomes a civil servant in the EU, but of course one remains British at heart, or Italian or French, or whatever it is. It was a waste of an opportunity to scrutinise, understand and affect what was going on in the EU. I am pleased to say that the civil service situation has changed, and that we are now far more immersed in Brussels.

Let us look at some of the big ticket items that have been agreed—I shall come on to them in more detail later, if I may—such as the trade deal with Korea or the patent agreement that protects any invention. You might have a small invention that you have pocketed away, Mr Deputy Speaker, and not yet told us about, but you can be assured that you will be able to present it and it will be protected right across the European Union. It was British civil servants who were able to pilot this measure through, and it provides an example of the sort of work they are doing.

To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), our understanding of these matters is important. When I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister for Europe, I remember organising cross-party visits for Members of Parliament to make the trip to Brussels so that they could learn about the EU, meet civil servants and understand how the European Parliament and various parts of the Commission work. Most of them were so delighted to get back on the Eurostar at the end of the day that they never wanted to see Brussels again, such was the scale of the bureaucracy. That highlights a challenge, but it perhaps also reflects the absence of a determination to say that we should be turning the situation around. We should not simply turn our backs on it and accept everything that happens; we should try to enhance British influence over what happens in Europe.

That is exactly what our Prime Minister has done in working with our allies and trying to effect change for the better. There are many countries, many Prime Ministers and many statesmen who agree with our free market liberal views on how the European Union should be conducted. They agree with us that it has become too politically empowered and not sufficiently transparent, and that although it is the largest single market in the world, it is becoming overburdened with red tape and bureaucracy. From a social perspective, furthermore, it is the most costly area in the world. Some 50% of social services in the world are found on our own doorstep in the European Union. That means that we are uncompetitive in comparison with other places in the longer term, which is exactly what the Prime Minister was trying to determine in his negotiations at the weekend. He explained what he returned with in his statement on Monday.

I am pleased that we have had yet another opportunity this week to debate these matters, and I am sure it will not be the last time. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for stepping in for our hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who was originally going to articulate his views on the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has done so with the same gusto that he has always shown in previous debates on the European Union. It is a matter of record and knowledge that he is my parliamentary Dorset neighbour, and I look forward to him donning one of the amazing ties that the leave campaign is promoting and going on the campaign trail in Dorset in the run-up to 23 June.

We heard contributions from other Members, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who articulated important questions about the merits of the European Union which need to be answered by those who want to remain in the EU. That is important for the public, many of whom are yet to make up their minds on the merits or otherwise of continuing our membership of the European Union.

The speech of the day was, I thought, given by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)—not simply because of its length, but its quality as well. He made some erudite points, and I thought he was extremely honest about what the British nation might expect from the leave campaign when it comes to articulating what it would mean if we did leave. He was honest in raising some question marks over what might happen to the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy. Many people support these policies now, so it is important for them to understand the consequences of leaving. It was very honest of him to pose those questions, and the nation must hear the answers in a proper debate.

The “Project Fear” label has crept into the discussion many times. We want to win the arguments because people have decided on the merits—the whys and wherefores—of both sides, rather than because they were unclear about the position, or because one side had decided to scaremonger. What worries me is that this might descend into something like an American presidential election campaign, in which the negative overshadows the positives and the educated points of view.

My hon. Friend also raised a number of specific questions, and I shall come to those later.

I am pleased to say that that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) managed to get hedgehogs into yet another debate, although he was not intending to talk about a subject for which he has become famous. He also made the point that this is one of the biggest debates that we will ever have, and that it is therefore right for us to devote time and energy to looking at all the details.

I am saddened that more Members have not taken the time to join us on a Friday. I do not know where the Scottish nationalists are, but at least the Labour Front Benchers have made it, and I am pleased about that. In any event, I am sure that Members will have further opportunities to debate these matters in due course.

As I said earlier, we had a full and wide-ranging debate on Europe yesterday, opened by the Foreign Secretary. One speech that was pivotal, and stood out, was the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames). It was a powerful oration, not least because my right hon. Friend mentioned his grandfather. As Members will know, his grandfather, looking at the mess of Europe, was concerned about how countries could integrate to the point at which they were no longer independent but interdependent, and would therefore never go down the road towards war again.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

May I take up that point about history, for the sake of the record? In his own very good speech, my right hon. Friend did indeed refer to his grandfather’s speech. Winston Churchill was always a robust defender of European unity, but he made it absolutely clear that what he foresaw was continental European unity. No one has ever been able to find any quotation from Winston Churchill suggesting that Britain should join a European union.

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend has made my point for me. What I think our right hon. Friend was trying to articulate was, “Please do not try to second-guess what would be the view of someone who is not alive today and able to understand the issues of today.” He made the point, very powerfully, that it was disingenuous to try to judge in that way. He was frustrated that people had taken the famous Zurich speech—of which we are now in the 70th anniversary year, and in which Churchill talked of a continental Europe—out of context, and had reinterpreted it in order to make their own points. In fact, it has already been used by both sides in the debate leading up to 23 June. Similarly, people have said of Margaret Thatcher, “I am sure that, if she were alive today, she would say this, that and the other.” I think it unhelpful to lean on great statesmen who are not here today, because today’s circumstances are very different.

It is, however, worth reminding ourselves that from the devastation of war-torn Europe has emerged a union of 28 nations, which are living in peace now, and which have also lived through a ragged period of dealing with the growth and subsequent demise of communism. We have become part of the biggest and most powerful single market in the world, and it is important for us to remember that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough also gives me licence to touch on how this is playing out in other European capitals. Things can be quite parochial in the Chamber, and sometimes the things that we say here do not reach much further, but we are being watched, registered and monitored in other capitals across the world as we have this debate. I have to say from my role as Foreign Minister responsible for the middle east, north Africa and south-east Asia that there is some puzzlement about this debate, as Britain has a legacy of being at the forefront of decision making—being a P5 UN Security Council member, a leading member of the Commonwealth and playing such a pivotal role in NATO, and given that in every international organisation from the World Trade Organisation to the International Monetary Fund to the World Bank, Britain is at the forefront.

Other countries hesitate and look at us to see which direction Britain is looking in, knowing that we have a powerful, strong and important relationship with the US, that we have experience, and that we have an interest in, and understanding of, much of the world around us, yet they also look at us and see that we might want to opt out of one of the largest organisations in the world. The Prime Minister also articulated that point on Monday.

We do not make any reference to the fact that the UK could survive outside the EU. We are a great and powerful nation—the fifth biggest trading nation in the world. The question is the degree of that success. That is what we need to debate up until 23 June. Are we better off out and making decisions separately, or are we more powerful as part of this organisation and collectively exerting more influence from inside? That is pivotal in the debate we will have in the next three months.

Much has also been made about the security concerns and whether Britain’s security status and competence would rise or fall were we to leave the EU. When the starting gun was fired, and the debate opened up and people declared their position, some comments were made about the Paris attacks, saying that they would be more likely to take place in the UK if we were outside the EU. I think those comments were disingenuous; I will not go further than that. We need to have a sensible and measured discussion about security. I certainly do not agree with that sentiment at all, and I urge those on both sides of the argument to be very cautious about making flippant comments and scaremongering. We are of course subject to the pressures of the media and the sensationalism they seem to encourage so that they have soundbites for the evening news or the Twittersphere, but our allies are looking at this and it does not bode well for Britain if we scaremonger in this way.

However, we are living in a very dangerous and complex world, one that is far more complex today than it was a couple of decades ago. The consequences of the Arab spring are still with us, we have an emboldened President Putin—far more unpredictable than ever before—and we have the growing concern of extremism. When the Bali bomb went off in 2002 there were just over 20 listed extremist groups—listed groups of terror. Today there are over 50. These are registered, listed groups recognised by us as organisations of terror. That means that at the moment we are not winning the battle to contain them. Daesh is obviously the biggest, and it is a franchise; other organisations, such as Boko Haram, Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis and Ansar al-Sharia in Libya, are joining forces and gaining a franchise from Daesh. We need to think about how we collectively defeat that, and there is a question about the role of the EU in dealing with that.

Much has been said about the role of NATO—it was mentioned today. It is, of course, the cornerstone of our security endeavours, and we also have our strong relationship with the United States, but along with the growth of the European Union comes soft power. These things complement each other, and one does not replace the other. In certain areas where other countries are wanting to pursue a European-style army, we have made it clear that we would not support that, and neither would many other countries. Everybody has recognised that from a kinetic perspective NATO is the cornerstone of our security, but soft power comes with the ability to provide political leverage in introducing sanctions, and it is the work of the European Union that started the ball rolling in getting sanctions built up against Iran. Those sanctions eventually forced Iran to curtail its nuclear programme, come to the table and agree a long-term solution which denies the Iranians the ability to build a nuclear bomb. EU sanctions and EU discussions led to the P5+1 talks, which involved other countries such as China, Russia and the United States. That gives us an indication of the role the EU can play, and the counter-piracy operations off Somalia are another great example of this work, which can complement what NATO is doing.

We also need to consider the bilateral operations that work underneath the umbrella of the European Union, for example, the Border Force capabilities in Calais. One could argue that if we step out of the European Union, we could negotiate these things one by one, but carrying out bilateral talks with a number of countries is a lot more complex. The question is: would such an approach be as efficient as going to a single organisation—Interpol, Frontex or the European border forces—and at these meetings having a say not just in bilateral arrangements, such as those we have with France, but collectively? Internationally, what is the European Union’s view on the situation in Libya, with the movement of refugees and with the criminal gangs exhorting funds from refugees who wish to make the perilous journey across the Mediterranean? My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley posed the question as to the impact of extremist parties in Europe, as it could be argued that that has been a consequence of the movement of refugees. But the only way we are going to sort that is by dealing with the problem at source—by addressing what is happening in Syria. Again, I would argue that the EU can put far greater emphasis and might into providing a challenge and looking for solutions by working collectively, not only on managing the refugee crisis, but on addressing the challenges at source in order to mitigate what is going on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I am not sure that is quite correct. Federica Mogherini, who leads on these matters for the European Union, is very much in alignment with that view. We discussed these things in Rome recently when we looked at Syrian and Iraq matters. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are a number of challenges—first, the genuine Syrian refugees caught up in the region. We should pay tribute to Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other countries, for the massive burden that they have taken on. We have chosen to support those refugees who are most vulnerable. The challenge that has come across Europe comes not just from Syrians. Mixed in with them are Afghans and others from Africa, taking advantage of the patterns of migratory flow. We have said that if we open our doors to them, we are likely to encourage more. That is why we have been very firm.

The consequence is that thousands are still coming in across Europe every day and we need a solution to deal with that. If my hon. Friend visits Greece now, he will see the scale of the challenge there. On beaches that should be for holidaymakers, there are migrant camps and individuals everywhere, some in transit and some having put up a temporary home. EU countries are affected by that, which is why collectively we need a better solution.

Central to that is solving the problem so that people do not feel they want to turn their back on their country, thereby making it all the weaker. Many of the people who can make it and are making it to Europe are the ones with mobile phones, the ones who are fed and have a family. I do not doubt that they are going through an horrific time, but many of them are educated and if they depart from Syria, they deny it the doctors, nurses and engineers that will be needed once the guns fall silent and the country starts to rebuild itself.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

May I say that the Minister is replying to the debate extremely well? It just shows that sometimes there is an advantage in having to wait a bit before one gets on to the Front Bench because one understands this place better.

May I ask my hon. Friend a serious question about the refugees from Syria? I put this point to the Prime Minister and I am not sure I got an adequate reply. I want the Minister to try and deal with it. I am not so worried about east European migrants to this country because they work hard and integrate. I am extremely worried about the millions pouring in from the middle east, including Syria. I said to the Prime Minister that Merkel’s million would all have a right to come here once they get passports. The Prime Minister said that only 2% of people coming into Germany get passports.

The Minister cannot give me an answer now, but will the Foreign Office do some more work on this? Based on history, I think a much higher proportion of those pouring into Germany now will get passports. I would like the Foreign Office to keep an eye on this because those people would have a right to come here and it is an important issue.

[Mr Ellwood]

The first thing that has to be acknowledged is that the normal processes in place across Europe for dealing with refugees applying for status are going to be tested, because of the scale of the migration that we are dealing with. Under Germany’s current rules, they would have to wait a number of years—eight years, I think, but I stand to be corrected—before they can gain a passport. If they have a criminal record, they will not get a passport. So there is automatically a delay in the process of securing a passport. The German analysis is that in such a time frame, many will hope to return home or to remain in Germany. We need to keep the problem in context. If they are in Germany, have a German passport and receive benefits there, why would they want to come to the UK? These are big questions, but they are for further down the line. They should not be ducked. The scale of what we are dealing with is unprecedented since the movement of populations after the second world war.

I should just mention that much of the focus of the Syria conference that took place in the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre was on some of those questions as well. We raised an unprecedented amount of money—$11 billion was pledged in one day—from the international community. I spoke at one of the non-governmental organisation conferences, and much of the energy was focused on how the European Union deals with such challenges. If I am honest, the EU could be regarded as a fair weather organisation: when economies are doing well, that is all fine and good, but when something such as Ukraine comes up, that is when the mechanics of bringing countries together to achieve consensus has yet to be tested. That is where the European Union is having to learn far faster than NATO, which, from a security perspective, had the machinery in place to be able to react to these events on a more regular basis. None the less, my hon. Friend raises an important point.

I just want to talk a little about the consequences of exit, which is what this Bill is all about. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, we would have to delay the referendum. There is a trigger notice in article 50, which would prompt negotiation. A country cannot simply walk out of the European Union, nor can it tear up its membership card as one can do, presumably, with a political party. It needs to apply to leave, and in the good old European Union way there is a process to be followed. That process can last up to two years. It also requires the support of the 27 members, and that can take time. With all this, there is a question for those who are advocating departure: if the process were to last more than 24 months, what happens to businesses and where do they fit in? What will happen to deals, negotiations and reputations? How does the City of London continue to attract business if there is a question mark over the departure date—and that is before we have even considered what we might be entering into.

Michael Howard’s comments were referred to this morning. He talked about renegotiating to get back in. So, let us say that a country manages to get out of the EU in two years, it then might have to begin negotiations to get back in again. It took Switzerland eight years to consolidate its deal. That is time consuming. Arguably, the process can be faster. We are a far bigger country than Switzerland or Norway, so the process could be expedited. Again, there will be delays. There is a question mark over where we actually stand and what our relationship is.

It is just worth mentioning article 49, which does not get as much press as article 50 in the European treaty. It says:

“Any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union.”

Article 49 is all about what a country does to regain its membership. It says:

“The European Parliament and national Parliaments shall be notified of this application.”

All the national Parliaments then have a debate and discussion about a future British application.

“The applicant State shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the European Parliament”.

So the country needs unanimous support. If one country were to say to us, “No, you can’t come back in on those terms” then we are stuck. Also, anybody who knows the European Parliament knows that it has myriad views.

It goes one to say that the European Parliament

“shall act by a majority of its component members…The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded, which such admission entails, shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State.”

I could go on, but I think that the message is clear. There are an awful lot of hurdles to clear to complete the process. It is not a simple process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend shakes his head. I hope that were that horrible scenario ever to take place, recognition would be given to Britain’s place in Europe, but other countries could quite rightly say, “Hang on a minute, We have dedicated teams looking at us. Why should Britain jump the gun?”

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Why is the Minister spending so much time arguing about a process for how we will get back in the European Union when we will have just left it? I am confused.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

That is why these debates are helpful. I can only make clear what the Government’s position is. I can also ask the Minister for Europe to place a letter in the Library to set out in more detail what the consequences would be. Given the number of emails, there is clearly huge interest in this matter across the country, so I am pleased to have this opportunity to address it.

Guidance to the civil service was mentioned. The example was given of the fishing Minister’s dilemma in being unable to participate fully in the debate on the European Union. Of course, he can participate fully, but to clarify—the Prime Minister also responded on this issue at Prime Minister’s Question Time—the Government have a clear position, which is to recommend to the country that people vote to remain members of a reformed European Union.

Quite exceptionally, Ministers are being allowed to depart from the normal rules on collective responsibility, in order to dissent from the official Government position on the referendum question. However, the civil service exists—we cannot get away from that—and it is there to support the Government of the day and the policy agreed by the Government of the day. The letter published by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and subsequently extended by formal guidance from the Cabinet Secretary to civil servants, does no more than give effect to that.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On that point, when will purdah begin?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am coming to that shortly, when I will go into the details of the timetable, but I just wanted to clarify the position, because it may be raised again in relation to other Ministers who have different views as well.

Defence Reforms

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Edward Leigh

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) who has given distinguished service. I never rose higher than a most diffident and incompetent trooper in the Honourable Artillery Company, so I speak with some diffidence in this debate. I may be an amateur in military strategy, but I know a bit about parliamentary procedure, and I am concerned about the way that debates on our armed services are effectively being downgraded. The House is on a one-line Whip, and we are debating a motion that we have not heard a lot about. The motion

“urges the Government to delay the disbandment of regular units until it is established that the Army Reserve plan is viable and cost-effective.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who is sitting next to me, will press the motion to a vote, so it will—I presume—be passed by the House. It is incumbent on the Government to listen to the House if it expresses an opinion in such terms.

[Mr Ellwood]

On that point, I stress that this is a serious motion, but the House needs to reflect on how we pay tribute to our armed forces. I do not believe that a half-day debate on a Thursday is the way to do that. We previously had four debates a year on the issue. I hope that the powers that be will listen—I hope my hon. Friend will agree—and that we can return to that and do justice to what our armed forces are doing for this country.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I agree with my hon. Friend. When I arrived in the House we had an annual Navy debate, which was the only debate in which Mr Bonner Pink—a great man who represented Portsmouth—spoke in the course of an entire year, so important was it. We greatly respect my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, but we would like the Secretary of State to be present on these occasions and in these most important debates.

We are, of course, sympathetic to Defence Ministers, and we know the intolerable pressure they have been put under. I will not get into a debate about the £35 billion black hole, just in case the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) intervenes on me, but as we know, the money has to come from nowhere—or rather, from somewhere—and difficult decisions must be made. I hope that was not a Freudian slip, Madam Deputy Speaker, and by the way, welcome to the Chair. Thank you for calling me; you are doing wonderfully well so far.

We all know the pressure that those on the Front Benches are under, but that does not absolve them from answering the central question in this debate. We can argue about the relative costs of reservists compared with regular forces, but we cannot deny that the previous Secretary of State made a pledge to the Chair of the Defence Committee that we would not reduce the Regular Army unless we were sure we could recruit these reservists. That is the nub of this debate, and we must not get lost in the detail. We must keep our eyes firmly focused on the issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) has played a distinguished part in this debate, and his independent commission concluded:

“Our Reserve Forces are in Decline.”

Why are they in decline? The commission concluded:

“We have failed to modernise Reservist Roles.”

We must ask my hon. Friend, and the Minister, whether we can increase the burdens we place on reservists when we are still modernising their role. The 2013 MOD White Paper “Reserves in the Future Force 2020: Valuable and Valued” was produced in response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I did not want to focus on legacy issues and procurement—all hon. Members are well aware of them, and there are questions to be answered on both sides of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

And the carriers must be protected by frigates.